Is the "truth" the same for an Iranian living in mud-brick, one-room house in the middle of the Iranian desert as the "truth" is for someone living in a highrise Manhattan condo worth billions of dollars?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Is the "truth" the same for an Iranian living in mud-brick, one-room house in the middle of the Iranian desert as the "truth" is for someone living in a highrise Manhattan condo worth billions of dollars?

Baron Max

Click to expand...

Some people have objectivity. I like to think that I am more objective than I am subjective... though, I can't deny the possibility that THAT oppinion is wrong and... well... subjective!

The best we can hope to do is verify those things which are obvious and unchanging truths (There is a Sun, There is a Moon, There is Gravity). Once you start with the basics, you can move on to more etherial matters.

You are, of course, referring to personal maxims; I am refering to something that's constant regardless of oppinion. The point is, you have to start with the basics-- should you find a person who is unaware of the moon, then perhaps verify the reality of the cave they live in and the snails they eat. THOSE would then be the basics... you get my point.

The moon, however, still exists despite one's acceptance of the fact. If you find someone who cannot accept even the basest maxim, then don't bother. You are either talking to a child, a lunatic, or someone with a low IQ-- if that's the case, then what's the point?

I would say yes, because there was less political correctness and things were more obvious.

Click to expand...

Didn't people believe for like 2000 years that we didn't live in the real world, but a reflection of it, and all that other non-sense because they felt inferior to the Greeks? Didn't Taoists believe that they could live forever? Unless you mean like a few hundred years ago, in which case I believe people of the past weren't just more capable of accepting the truth, but more intellectual in general. At least in Western Europe(then again, I'm comparing the Europe of the renaissance to today's America).

In this thread I am talking generally not about religion, but everyday life. Thus 200 years ago when Napoleon wanted a war with Russia, he didn't have to make up bullshit reasons for it, he just had to say: let's conquer Russia...

In this thread I am talking generally not about religion, but everyday life. Thus 200 years ago when Napoleon wanted a war with Russia, he didn't have to make up bullshit reasons for it, he just had to say: let's conquer Russia...

Click to expand...

Napoleon didn't have NBC, CBS, CNN and all the newspapers in the country writing nasty articles about him or his desires.
Napoleon didn't have a bunch of no-brain protestors screaming silly slogans at him and marching through the streets protesting his actions.

I don't think it has anything to do with "truth", it has to do with power.

There are, of course, thousands of "Little Napoleon's" running around the world ....and they MAKE people listen to them and do what they say. Just think about it ...your boss? ...your parents? ...Robert Mugabe? ...Hamas? ...Hezbollah? ...news men and women? ...Wikipedia?

Instead of calling it truth, it might be more useful to ask why people don't like to change their views. I think people all have developed their own views through certain ways and that they have become comfortable and content with living with these beliefs. Anything that would profoundly change these beliefs, the first reaction is to reject them because just like scientific paradigms, it would require a lot more thinking and rethinking on their part.

I've raised rational arguments with people about certain topics that would inevitably lead them to the same conclusion as mine, but its just human nature to want to stay with one's own beliefs. I don't think people in the past were biologically more willing or unwilling to change their views, however I do think that culture has the biggest role in this. Some cultures may have made people more willing to be open-minded but as a whole, I think that any organized religion or socio-political system that we have seen encourages people to think as a herd and only accept the ideas of the group. Sure, democracy as a pure ideal encourages people to be open to changes but in practice, certain smaller groups and certain ways of thinking overpower the others through nationalism, political power struggles, etc... Basically it is just easier and more beneficial for people to go along with whatever is working for them until they are forced to change because of environmental factors.

There are a minority of people who are more conscious about what is going on and who are better able to filter information from their environment and I think these are the people who arent as conditioned to thinking only in certain ways.